Playable vs video IPM claims for midcore F2P: sample scope check
Scope audit for vendor IPM lifts comparing playables to video—midcore vs casual mix, network, and creative specs. No invented IPM average.
Vendor IPM (installs per mille) lifts for playables versus video rarely disclose whether the sample is midcore F2P, hybridcasual, or mixed. This benchmark-check is a scope audit, not a replacement chart.
What primary docs actually define
Unity playable asset specifications require a single inlined HTML file, under 5 MB, MRAID-compliant, with orientation and mraid.open CTA expectations. That is a delivery spec, not an IPM guarantee.
TikTok’s Spark Ads help documents a native organic-post ad format and objectives—including app promotion—not a playable-versus-video IPM study.
Scope checklist for any IPM lift claim
| Disclosure | Pass | Fail |
|---|---|---|
| Genre mix | Midcore share stated | “Games” only |
| Network | Named (Unity / TikTok / other) | Blended anonymous |
| Creative form | Playable HTML vs video length | “Interactive” undefined |
| Denominator | Impressions definition | Clicks used as IPM |
| Date range | Inclusive dates | Evergreen undated |
| Optimisation | CPI / ROAS / event | Hidden |
| Sample N | Creatives and apps counted | Anecdote |
Facts versus limits
| Fact | Limit |
|---|---|
| Unity publishes playable specs | Spec ≠ performance lift |
| TikTok publishes Spark Ads format help | Not a midcore IPM meta-analysis |
| No numeric IPM delta stated here | Intentional |
Download the CSV.
